Citations

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), or its variation known as laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), has been recognized as a potential cause of several laryngeal disorders. Patients with laryngeal cancer have lifestyle risk factors, especially tobacco and alcohol consumption, that play an etiological role in the development of their cancer but also places them at risk for reflux. The question then arises whether there is merely an association or a causal relationship between laryngeal cancer and reflux. However, despite a number of studies, a causal relationship with laryngeal cancer is uncertain. In this article, we address the current literature in a critical manner to evaluate the relationship between reflux and laryngeal cancer. From the review of the literature, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support a causal role of reflux in laryngeal cancer, mainly because of the confounding effect of tobacco and alcohol consumption and the inaccuracies in the diagnosis of reflux. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 35: 1814–1818, 2013

Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.